Gravel is an extreme libertarian who disagrees with Palin's politics, but seems to be objectiveabout her personally. This is what he had to say about Palin's nomination to run for Vice-Pres:

Secondly, the New York Times has an article on how the Dems health care bill will be expensive.

Well, no kidding. One of the most idiotic things I've seen is this idea of expanding Medicareat the same time we're cutting Medicare funding. Make any sense? Of course not. Why are theydoing it? This guy is candid:

“Extending this successful program to those between 55 and 64 would be the largest expansion of Medicare in 44 years and would perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York.

The ultimate goal is a single payer system. Period.

Why don't they just take all of our money, put it in a giant pile, and burn it?

Rasmussen reports the Tea Party Movement, which percolated only months ago, is beating the Grand Old Party.

That's amazing -- and good -- news. A nascent grassroots movement is more popular than a long-established political party.

Republican Party leaders should be embarrassed. Instead, the Republican establishment disdains this populist uprising. Rather than embracing this genuine movement, establishment politicians and consultants are calculating how to co-opt, sideline or even defeat the newest phenomenon in politics - tea partiers.

That would be arrogance, not leadership. It could be the downfall of Republican leaders, who have taken the Party of Reagan to the Party of No -- meaning, No Ideas, No Leadership, and No Principles.

What's driving the Tea Party phenomenon? Robert Stacy McCain writes at American Spectator about one tea partier, Rhonda Lee Welsch, who says, "‘It's a systemic problem,' discussing the top-down approach of leaders in both parties who seem indifferent to the concerns of ordinary Americans."

People realize that big-government, career politicians aren't going to save America, if it's not too late for that already. Like a modern-day court of Louis XVI, our leaders are disconnected from the people. An uprising is taking place, yet our political leaders seem more interested in playing a good round of golf.

As I wrote not long ago:

Americans are concluding more and more that many of the current problems we face are caused by unrestrained and corrupt government. It is becoming apparent to millions of voters the solution lies in electing officials who understand, respect and abide by the Constitution as much as we citizens are expected to follow the law.

The Tea Party Movement, however, is about more than electing new politicians, although that will be one of its consequences. What's happening in the tea parties is that people are actually using the Constitution to ground and form policy choices, and as a constructive means to hold the political establishment accountable.

Our constitutional system of checks and balances is currently in shambles. Congress refuses to hold the President accountable constitutionally, and the courts refuse to hold the other two branches accountable.

This is why the 10th Amendment is becoming so popular within the Tea Party Movement, and why that Amendment is becoming the bane of statists in the political establishment. The 10th Amendment, intended as a fundamental, "systemic" protection of our constitutional form of government, says that all powers not given expressly to the federal government by the text of the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. It is a failsafe against tyranny.

The 10th Amendment, which has been in the closet and is dusty, is a natural resource for the "leaderless" Tea Party Movement. The way to restrain the abuses of power, and create a culture of freedom and economic prosperity, is within the Constitution itself. Tea partiers will use the Constitution, which has been so disregarded by the three branches of government, to tame the beast of tyrannical big government. The 10th Amendment is one key to overcoming what Ms. Welsch articulates for all of us as a "systemic problem."

One of the best books I've read in recent years is The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom.

Read it, and you'll better understand why the Tea Party Movement is surging, and the Republican Party isn't. The book describes the success of leaderless organizations using the analogy of a spider, which is killed when its head is cut off, versus the starfish, which, when a tentacle is cut off, grows a new one.

The great Aztec civilization existed for centuries before the Spaniards arrived on the continent. Cortes told the Aztec leader, Montezuma, give me your gold or your life. Montezuma gave Cortes his gold, and Cortes killed him anyway. The Aztec civilization did not survive the loss of its leader. The head of the spider had been cut off.

The Apaches, a leaderless "starfish" society, survived hundreds of years of the Spaniards' trying to do what they did to the Aztecs. As Brafman and Beckstrom write:

You wanted to follow Geronimo? You followed Geronimo. You didn't want to follow him? Then you didn't. The power lay with each individual.

We are seeing the "starfish" Tea Party Movement with candidates running in both Democratic and Republican primaries. When they are shut out by the party establishments, as happened in New York's 23rd congressional district, they are running as independents, or under third parties.

"Starfish" tea partiers are learning how to organize, raise money, and utilize the alternative media in record numbers. They are voicing their opposition to unaccountable Big Government, and promoting productive policy alternatives, through the guiding principles of the Founders.

From the tea parties, the grassroots, and the alternative media, we are seeing new leaders emerge. Like our Founders, they understand their strength of leadership does not come from a political party, but from consent of the governed. That is why they don't hitch their wagons to one person or one party.

Talk radio host Mark ‘The Great One" Levin discussed recently how Reagan spoke not of "his" administration, but of "this" administration. Levin noted how Reagan understood his power came from the people, not from the office he held. Reagan didn't read The Starfish and the Spider, but he understood its principles. The successors to Reagan's GOP do not understand those principles, and seem more beholden to staying in Washington than saving America. They are "spiders."

The Tea Party Movement is determined to save America. Republican Party leaders would be unwise to try to co-opt, sideline or defeat it. Perhaps they should welcome the new leadership into the Party as their single most important survival tactic.

Sarah Palin is an authentic American phenomenon. She resonates with a majority of the American people as authentic -- because she is authentic. She is a no-BS, stand-for-the-truth, take-a-licking-and-keep-on-ticking kind of gal. In other words, she is not like the ordinary, everyday, go-along-to-get-along professional politicians who control our national political parties. And it is precisely for that reason that she can now spearhead an American political renaissance.

Our nation has been buried for decades under political pabulum. The Democrats pretend to represent average Americans, but they are controlled by wealthy elitists who pay lip service to American values while propagating cultural Marxism in every corner of the land. The Republicans pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but they are more comfortable outsourcing the sinews of American power than building strong the fabric of American society.

The American people have been held in thrall for decades to the two major political parties because there isn't a "none-of-the-above" option on our ballots. Worse yet, people have grown cynical about the prospects of honest and honorable government because they see that the people in power, whatever their political party, seem to have more solicitude for their own power than they have for the people.

The framers of the Constitution knew that people would be attracted to power who would be willing to trade their votes to remain in power. They crafted a Constitution to create a limited government in order to limit the power of such people. But government of the people, by the people and for the people requires people to be vigilant about keeping the power of government limited. Unfortunately, the people have failed to do that, and now it is time to rectify the failure.

It would be comforting to think that an authentic American political phenomenon like Sarah Palin could spearhead a successful third-party movement. But that is wishful thinking. Were she to attempt such a thing, it would almost certainly fragment the huge centrist American vote and result in further radical left victories in the national polls. That would compound the present disaster, and tilt America inexorably in the direction of third-world status and misery.

Better to heed the words of Shakespeare, who wrote that "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." For America, that means Sarah Palin and the Republican Party. Here's why and here's how:

1.The Republican Party is out, and wants in. That means it needs a champion who can generate popular enthusiasm. Sarah Palin is such a champion. Put aside the blithe criticisms of the pundits and naysayers. If an election were held today, Sarah Palin would generate a popular majority greater than the one that swept Ronald Reagan into the White House.

2.The Republican Party is chastened. Its failure under Bush to pare back the scope of federal interference in people's lives resulted in the Devil's bargain with the Democrats to expand federal involvement in mortgage lending, and that led directly to the collapse of the real estate market and then the stock market. That has taken the Republican Party down a couple of pegs, and it is now far more amenable to the common sense values that Sarah Palin embodies.

3.The Republican Party has an existing political infrastructure that can be used to facilitate a national campaign by Sarah Palin, whereas a third party candidacy would need to reinvent the wheel. Time is short, the issues are vital, and the 90% rule applies to the choice of political vehicle.

4.National campaigns require huge amounts of money. Sarah Palin can raise that money directly from the American people by way of the World Wide Web, in exactly the way Obama is alleged to have done. Millions of Americans will donate $5, $10, $20 or $100 to a political renaissance spearheaded by Sarah Palin. They will be glad to do it, because they trust her.

5.The time to begin the political renaissance is now, not in 2011 or 2012. The reason is that Sarah Palin must spearhead more than a personal, political campaign. She must spearhead a political renaissance, and that means taking over the Republican Party. To do that, she will need time and allies and money. She can raise the money, and the allies are ready to hand. But time is remorseless, and assuming power in the Republican Party will be time-consuming, so she must begin that task today.

A palimpsest is a manuscript written over a partly erased older manuscript in such a way that the old words can be read beneath the new. It is time for Sarah Palin to write over the American political landscape so that the words of our Founders will resonate across this land again. She can do it, because like the Founders of this nation she is an authentic American phenomenon.

The White House announced Wednesday that one of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s vocal home-state critics has been nominated for a federal position in Alaska.

Larry Persily, whom the Obama administration has chosen to serve as federal coordinator for Alaska natural gas transportation projects, was an official in the administrations of Alaska Govs. Tony Knowles, a Democrat, and Frank Murkowski, a Republican, before Palin appointed him to serve in her Washington office.

During the 2008 presidential election, Persily emerged as an outspoken opponent of Palin’s vice presidential candidacy. Immediately after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) chose Palin as his running mate, Persily told Bloomberg News: “She’s not qualified; she doesn’t have the judgment to be next in line to the president of the United States.”

A former journalist, Persily currently works as an aide to Alaska state Rep. Mike Hawker, a Republican.

The White House release announcing Persily’s nomination emphasized his experience working with both parties: “Mr. Persily is known statewide for his bipartisan credentials — he has worked for Democrats and Republicans — and his knowledge on oil and gas matters, particularly the history of the 40-year effort to develop a North Slope natural gas pipeline.”

Hmmmm...... I'm not sure if this is Palin-related, or if they're just hiring someone they agree with ideologically who has also had experience with Alaska oil and gas issues. Governor Palin had many political enemies in Alaska, some were scumbags and others just disagreed. Persily works as an aide to Mike Hawker, a known Palin enemy, so that's all I really need to know. He also served under Murkowski, which should tell you again all you need to know. But to avoid a total knee-jerk reaction, I've dug deeper.

Andrew Halcro promoted Persily for this position just last month. He suggested Persily to Mark Begich. From Andrew Halcro.com:-----

November 17, 2009: There is but one name that Alaska Senator Mark Begich should forward to President Barack Obama to become the head of the Office of Federal Coordinator for Alaska's natural gas pipeline; Larry Persily.

In 2005, the position of Federal Coordinator was created by Congressional action to coordinate activities by federal agencies with respect to the permitting and construction of a pipeline to bring North Slope gas to markets in the Lower 48.

The Office of the Federal Coordinator is an independent office within the executive branch that reports directly to the White House.

Since 2006, the position has been filled by former Alaska State Senator Drue Pearce who was appointed by then President George W. Bush. Yesterday, at the request of President Obama, Pearce resigned her post creating an opening in the top spot of the agency.

Persily's lengthy experience in oil and gas issues along with his intimate knowledge of Alaska's natural gas pipeline makes him not just the top choice, but the only choice. His former roles both in government finance along with a stint as the state's oil & gas guy in D.C. and his years in the publishing industry covering Alaska's oil & gas issues make him eminently qualified.

In appointing Persily, President Obama will get a coordinator who is smart, honest and not afraid to speak his mind about the true progress of Alaska's next economic great hope.

It was Persily, in his role as the former editorial page editor of the Anchorage Daily News who warned of delays ahead if former governor Sarah Palin's AGIA pipeline strategy was passed into law......

Persily knows his stuff.

He knew it then...and after three years of screwing around with AGIA, we know it now.

Senator Begich, it's time to bring in the closer from the bullpen.------------------

Okay, so Persily obviously disagreed with Palin's approach to get the gasline. Here's the thing on the pipeline: we won't know until after 2010. TransCanada has been given the go-ahead by the state to build the line. But they're not going to build a line until after the open season which will be in the summer of 2010. The open season is where all the different producers and other players in the industry will come to the table and do some hard-core negotiating. And nobody knows how that will turn out. If things go well, gasline. If things don't, we're right back where we started.

Now, AGIA (the legislation the state passed that gave TransCanada the license to build the line) originally had tax guarantees in it for the oil companies for ten years. The companies had wanted more like forty or fifty years, but the state said, "No way." The administration recognized though that industry does need some predictability, so they put in a ten year rate guarantee.

However, the legislature took it out because of questions of constitutionality, which I think was bogus. The administration signed it because it had everything else and that matter could always be revisited. In order to get a line, the state will probably have to revisit AGIA and put back in some sort of tax guarantee or structure so that the companies know what they're getting into.

The process is far from over. Any judgment of AGIA is, in my opinion, premature. Any number of things could go right or wrong before the final deals are struck. Not to mention that after the industry works it out, then they have apply for permits, etc.....

I hate to break it to Halcro, but this sort of thing doesn't happen overnight.

So, if someone has a problem with AGIA, I don't fault them for it, but I think they rush to judgment. We have no idea yet if it will work or not. It has brought the state closer than it's ever been before, but a project like this is complicated and it will take at least a couple more years before we know for sure.

Oh, and Andrew Halcro has been a Palin-hater since the dawn of time. He cooked up all this crazy stuff about Troopergate, and he hangs out with the likes of Shannyn Moore. I say, a pox on all of them, but that's just me.

Persily came out against Palin's candidacy for Vice-President. He claimed that she was unqualified, which is ridiculous. I mean, have you seen our current Vice-President? A mushroom could be VP; it's basically a do-nothing job.

Alaska's Congressional delegation has welcomed the appointment. Alaskans tend to present a united front to the rest of the country, despite the fact that they fight like cats and dogs amongst themselves. Hey, nobody else sticks up for them; they've got to take care of their own. Well, except when it comes to their former Governor.

I question Larry's judgment when he rushes to condemn AGIA, when, as I've stated, it's still far too premature to determine whether or not the project will work. It's dependent now on the open season and on whether or not the Alaska legislature gets a clue. Those are things that are now beyond Palin's control.

Persily, I believe, is probably a good choice for the Obama administration, from their perspective. He is someone who does have extensive experience with the oil and gas industry, he knows the players in Alaska politics, and he seems to be a business-as-usual kind of guy, not to mention he is a self-described Chicago Democrat. He has said that he is committed to getting the gas pipeline, so we'll see if he tries to aid AGIA in its success, or if he continues to try to poo-poo it and see it fail.

But fact that he's been an anti-Palin contributor over at the Huffington Post gives me huge pause.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Sarah Palin’s current book tour has afforded her overwhelming media exposure, including numerous high-profile television interviews. The full array of her strengths and weaknesses were on display, and she would be well advised to examine both in depth.

Palin has many allies and supporters. She has won their hearts by, in most cases, showing she is like them. She is, however, still despised (read, alternatively, feared) by her opponents, particularly the coastal “elites” who simply refuse to see her as intellectually competent to handle high office.

While her book and media blitz give plenty of evidence to the contrary, this resistance can be confronted in part with a few minor but consequential tweaks of her style. These adjustments can all be learned and must be practiced. If absorbed into a natural manner, they will make a major difference in how her opponents are able to object to her. Whether or not she ever runs for office, her impact upon both fans and foes is too formidable for her to leave this matter unattended.

Simply put: Palin must learn how to convey to her audience that she comprehends and can grapple with the depth and nature of presidential-level problems. This is the fundamental weakness to which most other criticisms of her are tethered.

In an attempt to demonstrate her proficiency, she often rushes to show she has an answer to issues — on health care reform, Afghanistan, the economy, energy security, Iran, and so forth. She also likes to show that she can somewhat succinctly summarize a solution or strategy and then pretends to be comfortable with her simplicity.

This is, however, fodder for her opponents, who like to think of themselves as intellectually superior not only to Palin but to the rest of us as well. They argue, not without reason, that Palin simply does not understand the complexity of our problems. Consequently, to them she appears little different from high school or college students foolishly believing they are experts on a subject to which they have just been exposed.

In contrast, (and while arguably much less “qualified” for executive office than Palin) President Barack Obama has mastered this game. Palin should study Obama’s effective style and utilize some of his most rudimentary techniques.

Obama will frequently appear to answer a question by articulating something worthy from each side of the debate. He will use the disjunctive form, saying “on the one hand …” and then pointing out “however, we must be mindful of. …” This is precisely the skill of the law student and lecturer that he was. Law school training is steeped in “issue spotting” or expressing the understanding of each side’s arguments. Obama is a Jedi at this talent.

It should be made clear, however, that Obama simply uses this as one of his many sleight of mouth tools. He frequently talks of bipartisanship and “bringing folks together” and creates the sense that his recognition of both sides will engender an open and deliberate struggle to get to the truth. In fact, Obama actually does none of this and resolves issues with the typical far-left bias he brought to the table. And often, he seats no one from the other side at the table at all.

And Obama’s grappling yields little in return. He spent months grappling with the intricacies of Afghanistan and Pakistan only to generate an incoherent policy which is even disliked by the very leftist elites who idolize the Grappler. Obama has spent his entire term to date grappling with “jobs” only to have greatly increased unemployment. And his solution? More grappling with the “Jobs Summit.”

This works on Obama lovers because they tend to hear him demonstrate that he “gets” both sides; they then presume and impute that he is likely to come out with the best answer. They simply defer judgment to him after being comforted that he will “grapple with the difficult realities” on their behalf. Palin needs to steal this very simple but effective move.

How does Palin begin to convey “grappling”? First, she must articulate a worthwhile interest from the other side. It only need be a consideration, not a winning argument. Once she convinces her audience that she sees both sides, they will take it from there and begin to transfer trust that she is equipped to formulate the best resolution.

A few other Obama moves can also help. First, pause before talking. Palin has a tendency to rush to show she has the answer. Yet to some, this can have the unintended consequence of feeling like an exam “crammer” who wants to get it out before she forgets her crib sheet. Take a breath. Your “elite” and self-identified “sophisticated” listeners appreciate the “thoughtfulness” that a pause can suggest.

Similarly, talk more slowly. Palin has a tempo that can aggravate certain listeners. It seems to come from genuine enthusiasm but can be offsetting to the “intellectual” crowd that likes to savor the wisdom it thinks it obtains from the likes of an Obama.

More importantly, learn when to stop talking. Great musicians learn the value of the “rest.” Great speakers know when to lay back. Palin sampled this from time to time in certain television interviews last week and the effect was dramatic. A little practice and she’ll have it down.One tactic she does employ is to utilize the interviewer’s first name. Used car salesmen do this frequently, as does Obama.

However, Palin typically rushes through her response such that the name fails to properly subdue the interviewer and, by extension, the viewer. The technique gives the suggestion of confidence and interpersonal openness but is most effective when the subject pauses, perhaps even leans into the interviewer (or even touches him), and changes into a serious tone for the answer: “Well, Charlie, this is a difficult maze to work our way through.”

She should also develop greater facial expression flexibility. Obama has learned to purse his lips and frown at key times to appear to be the consummate grappler. Tilt your head occasionally with a grimace. Looking down with a pause can help at times. Show little moments of unease with the simple fact that reality is not as neat as we would like it. Palin can even express that very thought: “I wish the world offered easy answers, Barbara” and “Oprah, we have tricky and thorny choices in front of us” and so forth. (Then, proceed to hit a simple statement out of the park!)

Palin connects her conservative principles well with her answers to specific problems. However, she sometimes does so with a rambling that detracts from the import of those principles. She might do well to limit herself to one principle per answer so that the audience has more time to savor each one.

All of these maneuvers are simple and require only small adjustments. It may seem counter to her image of being “natural” to employ them. To the contrary, they could truly assist her in better conveying what is, ironically, most natural to her: outstanding instincts for leadership.

Under the Democrats’ proposed health care reform legislation, we know that the government will have to determine some sort of rationing system in order to control costs. We are aware that part of the rationing will be absorbed in the discrimination that the bill inflicts upon the elderly; we know that it cuts $500 billion from Medicare. What has remained puzzling is how exactly this rationing will be determined for the rest of us. Similarly elusive is how the new Health Benefits Advisory Committee will decide whether or not you get certain medical treatments, regardless of the opinion of your doctor. After all, how do you put a dollar value on a human life?

If you think there is no answer to that question, you are way behind the progressives. In fact, most countries with socialized medicine, including Britain, are already using a mathematical formula that expresses the numerical value of one year of a human life in a measurement called the QALY, or “quality-adjusted life year.” In terms of determining medical care, the mathematical formula of the QALY is based on both how much a treatment may lengthen your lifespan and the quality of the life you will be living.

Basically, if you are in optimal health, the QALY of one year of your life is 1.0. But if you have any underlying conditions, like asthma or muscular dystrophy, your QALY is much lower. Under the QALY system, the blind are worth less than those with sight, as those who can walk are worth more than those in wheelchairs. Sound like discrimination against persons with disabilities? It gets worse.

In a paper entitled “Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination,” the director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School, Dan Brock, argues “prioritizing health care resources by their relative cost-effectiveness can result in lower priority for the treatment of disabled persons than otherwise similar non-disabled persons.” He says that type of system not only “implies that disabled persons’ lives are of lesser value than those of non-disabled persons,” but it also “conflicts with equality of opportunity; it conflicts with fairness, which requires ignoring (some/most) differential impacts of treatment; it wrongly gives lower priority to disabled persons for equally effective treatment; it conflicts with giving all persons an equal chance to reach their full potential; and, it is in conflict with giving priority to the worse off.”

Don't believe the left would cut medical costs by rationing care? Check out their formulas to calculate your life's value.

The “double jeopardy” scenario that describes how the disabled are not only already suffering with an illness or disability, but are also given a lower priority of health care treatments to preserve or improve the quality of their lives, has been widely debated in countries with universal health care. It does little good to pass health care reform that restricts denying insurance to those with underlying conditions when treatment is still withheld from these individuals as an inherent flaw within the system.

As if that’s not bad enough, the health advisor to the president, Ezekiel Emanuel, is proposing a system even more deleterious. His system, similar to the QALY, is “the complete lives system,” which not only allows for discrimination against the elderly and disabled, but also targets the very young, i.e., our children.

Emanuel says of his system: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Leave it to American progressives to take the QALY one step further by defining quality of life as how useful you are to society — that is, how likely you are to increase the government’s tax revenue, hence the emphasis on those between ages 15 and 40. Health care gets a lot cheaper by rationing care to all non-taxpayers.

According to Emanuel, “The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl.” I doubt the parents of the two-month-old agree.

And, if you are a child with disabilities, the government has already completely given up on you. Emanuel believes “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” What’s worse, since he does not believe in “guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason,” once the public option puts the private sector out of business, these types of life-changing services for children will no longer exist.

Years of research in treating children with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and dyslexia are in jeopardy of being rendered null and void. Years of progress in passing anti-discrimination laws may be undone in one single bill.

I snagged this picture from Photoshelter. It's Sarah and some others praying before a book-signing. It's copyrighted, so don't spread it around, but I just had to show it to you. Lots of other great pics over there. Just search for "Going Rogue."

Okay, a lot happened today. (By the way, I often type that as one word - "alot." I know it's two, but I always thought it should be one because we blend it together anyway. So if I blend the two words, I know they shouldn't be blended, it's just a small act of rebellion.)

Palin was a hit in Minneapolis, although she was not hit by a tomato:

What is it with liberals and throwing things? They caw all this stuff about how violent the tea partiers are, and then they throw things. I am mildly amused.

When it was Berger's turn to get his book signed, David asked Palin if she was going to run for president in 2012. "She said she would have to see, but she thanked him for asking that bold question," Berger said.

Berger said Palin was "very personable, very friendly. She talked to my son and my daughter. She thanked us for coming."

Hovland said Palin was "so nice. Very gracious, very complimentary. "I told her, 'please run for president.' She hung her head and smiled."

Hovland said Palin's father was also shaking hands with fans. "I told him 'try toconvince your daughter to run for president' and he said 'we've had a few conversations.' He said 'I'm proud of my little Sarah.'"

After the EPA's idiotic declaration that CO2 is killing the earth and must be regulated (everybody hold your breath), Salazar okayed some offshore drilling progress in Alaska:

Palin's response on Facebook:

I commend Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision today to conditionally approve drilling at three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska; it’s a decision that’s been a long time coming. The area north of the Arctic Circle contains some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves. U.S. Geological Survey researchers estimate that it contains 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil.

The international community recognizes the potential of Arctic off-shore drilling; it’s about time our government allowed us to compete with them by developing these rich reserves in an environmentally responsible way. As I said last April in my testimony before the Secretary during a federal hearing in Anchorage, “Alaska’s oil and gas resources can and should be a major part of the implementation of any creditable energy plan for our nation.

Alaska has proven that these resources can be developed safely, but Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

As an Alaskan and an American, I am very grateful for the decision today because it is a step in the right direction toward prosperity for Alaska and energy independence and security for America.

- Sarah Palin

I'm not sure what to think about this:

Anybody?

Palin's up to a 46% favorability. Ho hum. I hate polls.

Good letter to the editor on Palin here. It's not written by a fan, but it gives an actual objective look at things. This person must be one of the 8% who neither loves nor hates her.

In the underground, Levi Johnston and Andrew Sullivan were on Joy Behar. I'm not even going there......

Oh, and Andree McLeod has filed another ethics complaint against Sarah, this time about her legal defense fund. Maybe we should start filing stuff against Obama, putting a strain on the system and wasting money the money of Americans until McLeod stops wasting the money of Alaskans. Oh, that's right, we have a conscience.

Monday, December 7, 2009

When I walked into the Strand Bookstore in Manhattan last week, I headed straight for the bright young thing who wore an “Ask Me” button, and asked her to point me to the section of the store where I might find Sarah Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” She looked at me as if I had requested a copy of “Mein Kampf” signed in blood by the author, and directed me to the nearest Barnes and Noble, where, presumably, readers of dubious taste and sensibility could find what they wanted.

A few days later, I attended a seminar on political and legal theory where a distinguished scholar observed that every group has its official list of angels and devils. As an example, he offered the fact (of which he was supremely confident) that few, if any, in the room were likely to be Sarah Palin fans. By that time I had begun reading Palin’s book, and while I wouldn’t count myself a fan in the sense of being a supporter, I found it compelling and very well done.

My assessment of the book has nothing to do with the accuracy of its accounts. Some news agencies have fact-checkers poring over every sentence, which would be to the point if the book were a biography, a genre that is judged by the degree to which the factual claims being made can be verified down to the last assertion. “Going Rogue,” however, is an autobiography, and while autobiographers certainly insist that they are telling the truth, the truth the genre promises is the truth about themselves — the kind of persons they are — and even when they are being mendacious or self-serving (and I don’t mean to imply that Palin is either), they are, necessarily, fleshing out that truth.

As I remarked in a previous column, autobiographers cannot lie because anything they say will truthfully serve their project, which, again, is not to portray the facts, but to portray themselves.The questions to ask then are (1) Does Palin succeed in conveying to her readers the kind of person she is? and (2) Does she do it in a satisfying and artful way? In short, is the book a good autobiographical read? I would answer “yes” to both.

First, the art. The book has an architectonic structure that is built around a single moment, the moment when Palin receives a call from John McCain inviting her to be the vice-presidential candidate of the Republican party. When we first hear about the call it is as much a surprise to us as it was (at least as reported) to her, because for six pages she has been recounting a wonderful family outing at the Alaska State Fair. When her phone rings, she hopes it might be a call from her son Track, a soldier soon to deploy to Iraq, but “it was Senator John McCain asking if I wanted to help him change history.”

And that’s the last we hear of it for 200 pages. In between we hear a lot about Wasilla, high school, basketball, college, marriage, children, down syndrome, Alaska politics, the environment, a daughter’s pregnancy. The re-entry of John McCain into the narrative on page 208 introduces Palin’s account of the presidential campaign and its aftermath, especially her decision to resign the governorship before the end of her term. In the epilogue, another 200 pages on, the famous call serves as a bookend: “It is one year ago this week that I got the call from John McCain.”

Paradoxically, the effect of the neatly spaced references to the call is to de-emphasize it as a dramatic moment. It is presented not as a climax, but as an interruption of matters more central to Palin’s abiding concerns — her family, Alaska’s prosperity, energy policy. (She loves to rehearse the kind of wonkish details we associate with Hillary Clinton, whom she admires.)

Indeed, it is a feature of this narrative that events we might have expected to be foregrounded are elided or passed over. Palin introduced herself to the nation with a powerful, electrifying speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination. It gets half a sentence (“I gave my speech”). Chapter Two ends with Palin, no longer a mayor, wondering what she is going to do next. Four paragraphs into Chapter Three we learn, almost parenthetically, that she had decided to run for governor. (When and how did that happen?)

The only event that receives an extended discussion is her resignation. It is important to her because as an act it reflects on her integrity, and she has to be sure (as she eventually was) that she was doing it for the right reasons.

Resigning was a moral act for which she was responsible. The vice-presidential candidacy just happened to her; her account of it reads like an extended “what-I-did-on-my summer-and fall-vacation” essay. For many politicians, family life is sandwiched in between long hours in public service. Palin wants us to know that for her it is the reverse. Political success is an accident that says nothing about you. Success as a wife, mother and citizen says everything.

Do I believe any of this? It doesn’t matter. What matters is that she does, and that her readers feel they are hearing an authentic voice. I find the voice undeniably authentic (yes, I know the book was written “with the help” of Lynn Vincent, but many books, including my most recent one, are put together by an editor).

It is the voice of small-town America, with its folk wisdom, regional pride, common sense, distrust of rhetoric (itself a rhetorical trope), love of country and instinctive (not doctrinal) piety. It says, here are some of the great things that have happened to me, but they are not what makes my life great and American. (“An American life is an extraordinary life.”) It says, don’t you agree with me that family, freedom and the beauties of nature are what sustains us? And it also says, vote for me next time. For it is the voice of a politician, of the little girl who thought she could fly, tried it, scraped her knees, dusted herself off and “kept walking.”

In the end, perseverance, the ability to absorb defeat without falling into defeatism, is the key to Palin’s character. It’s what makes her run in both senses of the word and it is no accident that the physical act of running is throughout the book the metaphor for joy and real life. Her handlers in the McCain campaign wouldn’t let her run (a mistake, I think, even at the level of photo-op), no doubt because they feared another opportunity to go “off script,” to “go rogue.”

But run she does (and falls, but so what?), and when it is all over and she has lost the vice presidency and resigned the governorship, she goes on a long run and rehearses in her mind the eventful year she has chronicled. And as she runs, she achieves equilibrium and hope: “We’ve been through amazing days, and really, there wasn’t one thing to complain about. I feel such freedom, such hope, such thankfulness for our country, a place where nothing is hopeless.”

The message is clear. America can’t be stopped. I can’t be stopped. I’ve stumbled and fallen, but I always get up and run again. Her political opponents, especially those who dismissed Ronald Reagan before he was elected, should take note. Wherever you are, you better watch out. Sarah Palin is coming to town.

This is part of an awesome series by Frank Capra (same guy who directed Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) on WWII. It's called "Why We Fight." This is the section on Pearl Harbor and America's transition from isolationism to war:

Sarah Palin on Facebook:

Reflection on Pearl Harbor

On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on the U. S. Naval Station at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in which thousands of Americans lost their lives and our naval fleet was severely damaged. The events of that day, which President Franklin Roosevelt vowed would “live in infamy,” proved for many Americans that aggressors would not simply ignore us if we ignored them.

The attack on Pearl Harbor launched America into the Second World War, and our Greatest Generation did not hesitate when asked to sacrifice for their country. American men enlisted in droves, American women went to work in the factories that became our “Arsenal of Democracy,” and many Americans gave what little money they had to buy the war bonds that funded it all. They stormed the beaches at Normandy and fought on little known islands in the Pacific in the name of liberty.

They don’t ask for our thanks, but I hope we will continue to give it because the sacrifice that began at Pearl Harbor is one of the many events that have defined the United States of America as “the last best hope of man on earth.”

Sunday, December 6, 2009

This article talks about Palin getting a surprise visit from an old friend:

A high school basketball and track teammate from Wasilla, Alaska drove ten hours from North Dakota to have Palin sign her copy. “I know, you're in the book!” Palin said.

“Took her a second until I showed her my shirt and she was like 'oh my gosh'. It was fun, held up the line a little bit, but a nice reunion,” high school teammate Katy Port Allers said.

Port Allers makes an appearance in Going Rogue, complete with a photo with Palin from their high school days. “It was like wow, amazing, knew she was going to do something important and this is it,” Port Allers said.

Port Allers says she's had her copy of Palin's book since it was released and read it the same day. She says it brought back memories of a time when Sarah Palin was just another high school teammate. “It's true Sarah, it's all Sarah. It's honest and it's true, just like she is,” Port Allers said.

Whether it was ten hours on the road or ten hours in line, fans say their time was well spent. While Palin's autographs were the highlight of the book signing, dozens of people in line also asked her husband Todd Palin and former classmate Port Allers for their signatures.

More Excerpts:----------

Ann Sexton drove three hours from Des Moines to see her hero face-to-face."I want to be sure that I get to meet her," Sexton said. "If that means staying up all night wrapped in a down coat. … I used to live in Central Minnesota. This is nothing."

"We are strong Republicans," Bob Hoeffer said. "We're kind of dismayed a little bit about where the party is going and we hope that Sarah becomes a leader."

"When we found out she was going to be here, we decided that we were going to camp out, bring all of our stuff, and make it a memorable event that we can tell our grandchildren about," supporter Cindy Rilling said.

"I am glad to see that there are women getting in the game," Sexton said. "I would love it if she would run in 2012. That is my fond and hopeful hope."

SIOUX CITY -- Fans lined up outside of the Barnes and Noble store as early as 4 p.m. Saturday afternoon, braving frigid temperatures overnight in order to get a chance to meet former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Sunday afternoon.

The crowd was largely made up of Republicans, however there were also Independents and Democrats waiting in line. Kelsey Leonard, a Democrat and student at Northwestern College in Orange City, said that she intends on supporting President Obama in the 2012 election, but she was still interested in coming out to the Palin book signing. “I just kind of wanted to see the hype and I’m really interested in her book,” Leonard said.

One reporter did however ask Palin, “Why Iowa?” Palin responded by saying “Everybody wants to be in Iowa.”

There were no meetings with influential local activists, no contact with the state GOP, nor any time devoted to chit-seeking efforts to raise cash for other candidates.

They weren't the sort of party regulars who comprise the county GOP committees and always show up when a national politician comes to town. Many said they hadn't previously participated in the state's quadrennial caucuses and some indicated that they weren't even sure what the caucuses are. And while most were self-identified conservatives, there were also registered Republicans or independents who had previously backed candidates of both parties but who were drawn to Palin because of what she represents.

"I wish she was treated more fairly,” Mild said, noting the reports about her family and wardrobe. “She gets asked a lot of questions men don’t get asked.”

Jason Recher, who travelled with her on the campaign and is now with her on the book tour, suggested Palin had little interest in using the 32-city swing to bolster her presidential prospects, at least outwardly. "This book tour is about people - not politics," Recher said.

Some local Republicans – who are used to being courted by top national political figures – indicated disappointment that Palin only did the book stop.

“I guarantee we’d have 20,000 people show up for an event here,” Mark Lundberg, chairman of the Sioux County Republican Party told Radio Iowa’s O. Kay Henderson.

With a mix of Midwestern hospitality and wariness for an out-of-town reporter they explained why they were so drawn to Palin. Patricia Anderson, a registered independent from Sioux City who hadn’t caucused, approached a reporter to make her case for the polarizing former governor. “She tells you what she believes,” Anderson said. “You don’t have to guess. It’s better to listen to her than the media.”-----------

Pictures are from yesterday:

And, of course, Tammy Bruce on Palin book-signings and David Frum's latest scumbaggery:

Here's my take on Frum:

Has this doofus seen the crowds at Palin’s book signings? Women galore, buddy. Grow up.

These idiots are blatantly sexist, and what do they have to say in their defense? “Well, she’s sexy. She sends off a strong sexual vibe.” All Frum is pointing out is that he's a sick, sick individual. Sarah Palin is beautiful; it’s his twisted brain that turns it into something that it’s not.

Sarah Palin has never worn anything slutty or inappropriate. What does Frum want her to do, uglify herself? Give me a break.

It always reminds me of the rapist who says, “Well, she shouldn’t have worn that outfit.”

Palin hit Iowa and South Dakota today. I honestly think the importance of Iowa in a Presidential election is overrated. Yes, it's good for proving that you're in the game, and in Palin's case, that may be essential, but just because you win Iowa, does not mean you'll win the entire country. Look at who won Iowa last time. So it cracks me up that Sarah goes to sign books in Iowa and the media loses its speculative mind. Whatever.

"She's not embarrassed to speak her mind. She 100 percent believes what she says," Jewett said.

"Her appeal is antiestablishment, populist, and to center-right women finally seeing one of their own emerge only to be attacked and undermined," Mueller said. "It goes beyond presidential politics - it's cultural."

Palin’s parents, both dressed in purple, came near the exit to personally speak with each person departing. “Nice to meet you, Sarah’s Dad,” said the woman who came through as No. 399.

“I don’t know when I’m coming back to Iowa, but it was good to be here,” Palin said before hopping onto her bus.

"I just wanted to be assured I'll get a chance to at least get to see her and get her autograph," Stapp said. "We came prepared. I've got battery-operated socks, about four layers of clothing, hats, gloves, coat and a very strong will."

Carl Cameron traveled to Sioux City for Fox News, arriving Saturday.

"I got here last night," said Cameron, who said his station's primary interest lies in examining Palin's future. "I came to hear what the people have to say (about Palin)."

A BBC video team spent more than an hour interviewing attendees for a documentary on Obama's first year in office.

In other news, the transcript of Palin's speech at the dinner last night is here.

And another controversy is McCain's appearance on Meet the Press: “I am entertained every time I see these people attack her and attack her and attack her. She's irrelevant, but they continue to attack her...."

I don't like McCain, but he was obviously outlining the mindset of those who attack Palin, not his personal opinion. These people keep screaming from the rooftops that she's irrelevent, yet they can't quit attacking her. If she's irrelevant, why attack her? She's already dead. That was his meaning. The fact that the press is making a big deal out of this stupid stuff is very telling.

McCain: "I think that Sarah Palin has earned herself a very big place in the Republican political scene," McCain said. "I'm proud of her. I am entertained every time I see these people attack her, and attack her and attack her. 'She's irrelevant!' -- but they continue to attack her.

"We had a wonderful relationship, Todd [Palin], Sarah and I," McCain added. "I just saw her recently. And I'm very proud of her. And we need a vigorous discussion and debate in the Republican Party. She's going to be a big part of that discussion and debate in the future....

"You thought her book was fair?" asked host David Gregory. "Oh sure, yeah," said McCain. "I enjoyed her book."

Despite what the radical feminists say, women want men to be strong and confident without being jerks. It is called Biology.

Is chivalry dead? Have we conservative men allowed political correctness to prevent us from treating women the way we instinctively know we should? When my three brothers and I started dating, my dad instructed us, "You take good care and return her home the way you found her." Following dad's instruction made us feel good about ourselves. We felt like men.

It is time we conservative guys start acting like men and defend our women-folk (a little cowboy lingo). Since her acceptance speech as McCain's V.P. nominee, attacks on Sarah Palin have been vile, extremely vicious, and beyond the pale. Even Palin's family, including her fourteen-year-old daughter, were targeted for destruction by an (dare I use the E-word?) evil media. The Left's hatred of Sarah Palin is good versus evil, and Palin's book tour is pouring gasoline on the Left's "destroy Palin at any cost" fire.

Governor Palin positively represents motherhood, marriage, and traditional Christian values. The Left appears to despise any and all things so wholesome.

Unfortunately, it appears that even some on our side (conservatives) have bought into the media's "she is not too bright" portrayal of Palin. When Obama mentions 57 states and other faux pas, the sycophant media circle the wagons around him by saying he was tired or simply misspoke. Meanwhile, every word out of Palin's mouth is viewed through the template that she is stupid. Who among us could withstand such harsh scrutiny?

Well, I am standing up for my awesome conservative sister, Gov. Palin. She has the right stuff to get our country back on track. I love how Palin boldly and unapologetically challenges the concept of government-run health care, blasts the global warming/climate change scam, and declares her desire to drill for oil to make us energy-independent. Talk about backbone. Could Sarah Palin be the reincarnation of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan? No, I do not believe in reincarnation; I'm just having a little fun. My point is that despite what the snobby elites -- both conservative and liberal -- think, Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with and is great for America.

We, the People are so sick of namby-pamby, "middle-of-the-road-speak," focus-group-tested candidates. Don't say this because you will offend this crowd and don't say that because you will offend the other. For crying out loud, just say what you mean and mean what you say. Show us voters who you are. This is the kind of candidate we voters are longing and tea-partying for. And this is why Sarah "what you see is what you get" Palin is a rock star!

I believe strong women inspire men to be strong. They are not offended when we open the door for them, carry their heavy packages, and mind our conversation around them. Or has such behavior from men become too "Andy and Mayberry" for our secular-progressive, crude culture? Trust me, I am not a prude, but radical feminists have diminished women's power in our society. I was raised to believe that a real man treats women with a level of respect. Nobody is allowed to "dis" your momma, your wife, or your sister.

Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air -- a woman using the God-given power of her femininity to be a mom, a wife, and a governor. Awesome. I would be honored to say, "Yes, Madam President."

Not only is the Left committed to keeping women in their place, but they're the same with blacks as well -- all the while claiming to desire progress and liberation for both.

Blacks who achieve success without liberal programs and intervention are beaten down and dragged back to the Left's government-dependency plantation. Such uppity independent blacks are strapped in a chair, deprived of bathroom privileges, and shown videos 24/7 of Sharpton, Jackson, and hypocritical, rich, America-hating rappers. The deprogramming message: America sucks! Racist! Sexist! Homophobic! Liberal democrats are your saviors!

The Left is equally intolerant of independent thought coming from women. The Left deceptively calls its pro-abortion movement "pro-choice." If choice is their issue, why are radical feminists so offended when a woman chooses not to have an abortion? They have a weird anti-male (particularly anti-white-male) and anti-family agenda. Outrageously, feminist leader Catharine McKinnon said that "all heterosexual sex is rape." These angry, bitter women have a distorted view of the world.

Then along comes Sarah Palin -- happily married, a happy mom, and an effective governor. Feminists should regard Sarah Palin as their hero -- a shining example of women's liberation enjoying success in both family and career. But instead, the Left seeks to destroy her. Palin is too happy, too good, too pretty, too effective, and, most intolerably, too powerful.

I wish to encourage my fellow conservative men to display a little John-Wayne-type testosterone and defend our feisty conservative women-folk. As I am a conservative singer/songwriter, I have penned, performed, and recorded a song honoring conservative women titled, "Our Girls." Along with nationally known women like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Michelle Malkin, my song is a tribute to all my patriot sisters fighting for the cause of freedom, liberty, and conservative principles. Please give "Our Girls" a listen. I promise it will make you smile.

Sarah Palin has taken the country by storm, electrifying the grassroots conservative movement in a way no Republican presidential or vice-presidential candidate has been able to in a very long time.

The last person responsible for uniting grassroots conservatives to such an energizing degree was the great conservative himself, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan was the grassroots rebel to the mainstream media in a weary America -- entrenched in weak national defense and poor economic leadership, which barely withstood four years of Jimmy Carter. Come the end of 1979, fifty-two Americans had been held hostage by Islamic militants for 444 days, unemployment was through the roof, and national inflation rested in the double-digits.

As in the Carter era, Americans of every stripe are beginning to feel that weariness again. This is clear from a tremendous growth in unemployment, which correlates with president Obama's diminished approval ratings in his first year -- described by Gallup as "the largest [drop] ... ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953."

In addition to the immense-yet-strangely-encouraging disapproval of Sarah Palin among the media, Hollywood celebrities, and every liberal, Palin also finds herself at the editorial mercy of "conservative pundits" like Kathleen Parker -- or David Brooks of the New York Times, who proclaimed to George Stephanopoulos on the November 15th episode of "This Week" that Sarah Palin is "a joke."

Brooks, who used to be a liberal, was also responsible for parodying conservative pundit William Buckley, Jr. Naturally, one wonders how much attention Brooks actually paid to the 1980 presidential campaign.

As is the case with first-generation immigrants like Arianna Huffington and George Soros, who come to America with an immediate desire to reform it, many conservatives are suspicious of liberal-to-conservative "converts" who enter their side of the aisle with a drive to dictate how to change it.

Moreover, while some progressive types scramble to suddenly defend Reagan conservatism by writing articles titled "Sarah Palin is NOT the new Reagan," the life stories of Reagan and Palin contradict their theories by revealing stark similarities between these two fascinating Americans.

Reagan and Palin were raised with similar values, attended similar schools, had similar competitive interests, and embarked on authentic, gradual segues into public service, with an undeniable connection to conservative Americans.

Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin was born in a small town. Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, while Palin debuted in Sandpoint, Idaho -- both in February. As a youngster, Reagan had a job as a lifeguard and developed an enriched passion for competitive sports -- particularly football -- in high school. Sarah worked with her family, getting up with her father on many early mornings to hunt for the family's meat supply. In high school, she became known as "Barracuda" on the basketball court, and she eventually led her team to the state championship.

Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin never attended an Ivy League college. Reagan chose Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois, while Sarah Palin attended local and state-level universities. Both obtained bachelor's degrees and sought work as sportscasters -- Reagan for the University of Iowa, Palin for local Anchorage news station.

Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin got involved in politics by taking small steps. Reagan began writing speeches (which often espoused political messages supporting pro-business conservatism) while working for General Electric. Sarah Palin got involved with her local PTA and ran for city council of her small town because she was concerned about how her tax dollars were being spent.

Just as Ronald Reagan did, Palin contains an instantly recognizable honesty factor among the grassroots. Through honesty, both politicians' careers in public service continued to escalate in small but definitive steps.

Though he was honest and had good intentions, Ronald Reagan was dropped from General Electric as his speeches continued to grow more effective and persuasive. Identically, Sarah Palin made a large handful of political enemies in both parties in Alaska when, with the people's best interest at heart, she took on the same type of establishment politicians and opinions which continue to criticize her to this day.

Two years after his dismissal from General Electric, and in the same year Sarah Palin was born, Ronald Reagan kicked off the start of his enormous grassroots influence on a national level by giving his famed "Barry Goldwater" speech in 1964. Similarly, Sarah Palin remained impressively modest while giving one of the most powerful and effective speeches of all time during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Just like Reagan, Sarah Palin was able to demonstrate how one lives and learns through personal moments of grievance and despair. Last year, the mainstream media went wild over Sarah Palin upon learning about her daughter's pregnancy during the same time she was being vetted by the McCain campaign. With Ronald Reagan, liberals in the media took aim at the fact that he was "the only divorced president."

Just like Reagan, Sarah Palin had been out of the country only a limited amount of times before running for national office. Even during Reagan's service to his country, his nearsightedness kept him from serving overseas.

Liberals and Republicans alike declared Ronald Reagan unqualified to be president, especially after Gerald Ford beat him for the Republican nomination in 1976. Even after four years of Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford himself remarked as late as March 1979 that Reagan was "unelectable."

Gerald Ford is not the only member of a previously-failed presidential campaign to make such a proclamation. Just last month, Steve Schmidt, who headed the losing McCain ticket, claimed that Palin would not be "a winning candidate" for president.

With the release of Palin's Going Rogue this month, Nielsen reports Palin selling an astonishing 469,000 copies in the book's first week of release. This trounces Obama's The Audacity of Hope, which sold 67,000 in the same period. On her nationwide book tour, Palin is reaching out to the masses and once again drawing record crowds -- and her grassroots fame gave Oprah her highest ratings in two years.

Just like Reagan, Palin continues to plow through her opposition, remaining successful by holding onto the nationwide support she had from last year while growing an entire base of new admirers from the bottom up. With the left and the elite Republicans scrambling for their best anti-Palin rhetoric while she innocuously sells her book, one wonders what they will come up with if she ever does run for president.

Most importantly, given classic Reagan history, and while some in the media ponder whether Sarah Palin will ever get support from Washington's beltway, all grassroots conservatives seem to be energized by the obvious: She never needed it.

Topics

God: Judeo-Christian principles and, yes, how they have applied to our system of government.Guts: Those intrinsic things that we feel down in our inner-most being; the things we know are right, and the courage to defend them.Sarah Palin: The name speaks for itself.

Conservatives4Congress

Sarah's Twitter

My Twitter

Palin TV

Followers

Contact Me

Disclaimer

Disclaimers seem to be fashionable these days, so here's mine:

If you think that anything on this blog is in any way connected to Governor Palin herself, you're nuts. These are all my own stupid opinions. Palin probably doesn't even know I exist, nor does she care.

There, that should do it.

Oh, and don't assume that my posts from a year ago reflect the exact same opinion I hold now. I don't have time to go back and update every time I change my mind for the one or two people who are going to click on that post in the future.

"Notice how they’ll accept anything except a (wo)man who stands alone. They recognize (her) at once . . . . There’s a special, insidious kind of hatred for her. They forgive criminals. They admire dictators....They’ve got to force their miserable little personalities on every single person they meet. The independent (wo)man kills them—because they don’t exist within her and that’s the only form of existence they know. Notice the malignant kind of resentment against any idea that propounds independence. Notice the malice toward an independent (wo)man." - The Fountainhead